New Mexico State Personnel Office FY14 4 th Quarter Workforce Report Mission: To deliver human capital management programs that advance our state agencies missions while protecting the rights of our state employees
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
New Mexico State
Personnel Office FY14 4th Quarter Workforce Report
Mission: To deliver human capital management programs that advance our state agencies missions while protecting the
rights of our state employees
P a g e | 2
ContentsDirector’sReport................................................................................................................................................................................................3
WorkforceOverview...........................................................................................................................................................................................4
ClassifiedServiceataGlance(June30,2014)......................................................................................................................................5
TotalCompensation..........................................................................................................................................................................................5
MultipleComponentsofPay(MCOP).........................................................................................................................................................6
AnnualKeyPerformanceMeasures............................................................................................................................................................7
Overtime.................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
SickLeave............................................................................................................................................................................................................10
AnnualLeave......................................................................................................................................................................................................10
ClassifiedServiceRecruitmentTrends....................................................................................................................................10
AverageDaystoFillaPositionbyAnswerDateforKeyAgencies...............................................................................................14
ClassifiedServiceHiresandTerminations.............................................................................................................................16
NewHiresbyFiscalYear(FY09‐FY13)...................................................................................................................................................16
FY14NewHires&SeparationsbyQuarter...........................................................................................................................................17
NewHireCompa‐Ratio...................................................................................................................................................................................17
FY14–4thQuarterNewHireCompa‐RatiobyPayBand..................................................................................................................18
NewHireDemographics................................................................................................................................................................................18
FY14ClassifiedSeparationsbyReason...................................................................................................................................................19
FY144thQuarterClassifiedSeparationsbyAgency..........................................................................................................................19
StatewideClassifiedTurnoverRate..........................................................................................................................................20
StatewideClassifiedTurnoverRatebyAgency...................................................................................................................................21
VacancyRates....................................................................................................................................................................................22
QuarterlyVacancyRatesforthe20KeyAgencies..............................................................................................................................23
Training...............................................................................................................................................................................................23
Instructor–LedCoreCurriculumClasses..............................................................................................................................................23
ELearningMandatoryClasses.....................................................................................................................................................................25
AdditionalTraining..........................................................................................................................................................................................25
Adjudication......................................................................................................................................................................................26
LaborRelations................................................................................................................................................................................27
UnionRepresentedvs.NonUnion.............................................................................................................................................................27
P a g e | 3
Director’sReportThe State Personnel Office’s (SPO) mission is to provide to the State of New Mexico human resource leadership,
direction and service to maximize state government’s ability to serve the citizens of New Mexico. A quarterly report is
issued by SPO, as required by the Accountability in Government Act (AGA), to address the HR metrics established within
the General Appropriations Act (GAA). This report will constantly be modified to provide other metrics to facilitate and
enhance the State’s ability to address human resource issues impacting management throughout state government.
Assessing these metrics on a consistent basis is critically important in order to understand the myriad of challenges
currently impacting the State’s workforce.
SPO is required, and expected, to conduct and lead workforce planning and policy development throughout state
government on human resource issues. To accomplish this mission SPO, while working in partnership with the State
Personnel Board and state agencies, endeavors to:
• Provide timely and quality service to the Board, the Governor and state government agencies on the delivery
of human resource programs;
• Recommend improvements in state government emphasizing economy, efficiency, compliance and
effectiveness; and,
• Conduct value‐added reviews and projects as requested by the Board and/or Director.
During the fourth quarter of FY14 SPO made several enhancements in processes to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of human resource management in the State. The key focus in last 60 days of FY14 was on the State’s
recruitment and selection process. SPO continues to actively work with departments to decrease the amount of time to
review and refer applicants and improve overall hiring efficiency. Since FY11, the number of applications received
annually has almost doubled to a quarter of a million applications received in FY14 with over 4.1 million hits (viewing
open positions in NEOGOV). The most significant improvements in the hiring process were in the time to interview and
process a hire, which decreased by 21% from 52 to 41 days and the average days to process and refer applications,
which dropped by 18% to 9.1 days. The overall average dropped from 76 to 64 days resulting in a 14.5% reduction in the
time to fill a vacant position. Additionally, this report provides a breakdown by agency (for the 20 largest agencies) of
the various stages in the recruitment and selection process.
The statewide vacancy rate for the classified service dropped from 16.8% to 13.5% and the statewide turnover rate
dropped from 7.7% to 6.6%. 3,227 employment selections were made in FY14, the second year in a row where the
number of hires exceeded the number of separations. Additionally, there was an increase from 58% to 68% in the
number of employees who successfully completed their probationary period.
The state currently faces a myriad of classification and compensation issues in addition to impending retirements that
requires accurate and timely data.
Sincerely,
Justin R. Najaka
Interim Director
P a g e | 4
WorkforceOverview
Since FY09, the state’s workforce demographics show significant change due largely to retirements, normal attrition, and
budgetary limitations. SPO has initiated the following critical actions to stabilize and increase a qualified work force:
• An on‐line application process (NEOGOV);
• Revision of classifications to closely align job duties with the requisite minimum qualifications required; and
• Initiation of a compensation review to make State classifications competitive with both the public and private
sector.
State classified employee levels for FY14 increased by 11% over FY13. From FY10 through FY12, the reduction in
employees (‐10.2%) in the classified service occurred without major layoffs. This was largely due to a continued
assessment of the need to fill vacant positions, improvements in business processes, revisions of restrictive non‐
competitive compensation plans and employee retirements and resignations. The following graph illustrates this impact.
24.9 25.7 25.1 24.1 22.6 22.2 23.2
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Thousands
Employee HeadcountFY08‐FY14
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 (YTD)
Executive 2.7% ‐2.7% ‐4.2% ‐6.6% ‐2.3% 2.8%
Legislative 11.1% ‐2.2% ‐3.4% 0.6% 1.2% ‐3.5%
Courts 5.1% 0.3% ‐1.4% ‐2.6% 0.4% 1.5%
‐8.0%‐6.0%‐4.0%‐2.0%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%
10.0%12.0%
Percent of inc/decr
Percentage Change in Employee Headcount by Fiscal Year
P a g e | 5
TOTALCOMPENSATIONASOF
JUNE30,2014 AVERAGEBASE
SALARY$42,973
AVERAGEBENEFIT$30,677
AVERAGETOTALCOMPENSATION$73,650
AVERAGECLASSIFIEDEMPLOYEECOMPA‐RATIO100.2%
ClassifiedServiceataGlance(June30,2014)
TotalCompensation
Total compensation is a commonly utilized standard by both private and public sectors in assessing employee average
base salary and benefits provided by the employer. Benefit expenditures provided by the State include costs associated
with retirement, health and other insurances, FICA and leave (annual, sick, etc.). The following graph shows the
significant growth in the average benefit expenditures by the State. The FY09 increase was largely due to legislative
changes in both employee retirement and retiree health care insurance contributions. In FY14, benefit costs as a
percentage of total compensation rose as health care insurance rates increased. Between FY13 and FY14, average
benefits rose 8.45% while total compensation only rose 4.33%.
15,578 15,595 15,716 15,828 15,832
1,973 1,954 1,979 2,003 1,999360 246 222 239 390
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
FY13 Q4 FY14 Q1 FY14 Q2 FY14 Q3 FY14 Q4
FY14 Classified Employees Workforce
Regular Employees Term Employees Temporary Employees
WorkforceData
UnionRepresentedEmployees 55.6%
Minority 67.6%
Female 54.3%
Male 45.7%
Total Employees: 18,221
Regular: 15,832
Term: 1,999
Temporary: 390
Managers: 2,171
Supervisors: 1,473
P a g e | 6
Continued increase in benefit expenditures will continue to impact the State’s ability to address the competitiveness of
employee base compensation.
MultipleComponentsofPay(MCOP)
Various pay mechanisms permitted through the State Personnel Board (SPB) Rules were developed to enhance
recruitment and retention efforts. However, most were never intended to be permanent resolutions. The following
provisions within the SPB Rules are currently authorized:
Temporary Recruitment Differentials (TREC) are allowed for positions determined to be critical to meet the business needs of an agency experiencing difficulties in recruitment.
Temporary Retention Differentials (TRET) provide a methodology to retain an employee critical to meeting the business needs of an agency that would otherwise be disrupted if an employee left the position.
Temporary Salary Increases (TSI) are provided when an employee temporarily accepts and consistently performs additional duties characteristic of a job requiring greater responsibility and accountability, making it a higher valued job. A TSI is a short‐term salary measure that may be used until the conditions of the additional duties and responsibilities cease to exist and may not be extended beyond a one‐year period.
In‐Pay Band Salary Adjustments (IPBs) are allowed to increase an employee’s base compensation up to 10% within a fiscal year, provided the employee’s performance has demonstrated placement at a higher compa‐ratio. This pay mechanism allows for salary growth within the Pay Band. The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) also must review IPBs to ensure agency budget availability.
These temporary provisions were developed to address the impact of recruitment and retention issues as a result of the
budgetary restrictions imposed by the Legislature; however, in many cases these temporary increases were not
terminated as required by SPB rules.
Beginning in FY11, SPO initiated actions to ensure compliance with SPB rules. SPO reviewed and correctly classified
positions that had a minimal budgetary impact on agencies and complied with SPB rules. The State’s pay structure has
not been comprehensively addressed since 2001, resulting in the loss of employees in many critical positions, creating a
negative impact on the State’s ability to attract and retain qualified applicants. The following graph shows the impact of
these efforts as a significant decrease in all temporary MCOPs. This effort, in conjunction with pay plan initiatives, will
continue to result in both the recruitment and retention of state employees.
$23,502 $28,028 $27,387 $27,867 $27,328 $28,107 $30,482
$40,594$42,099 $42,058 $41,986 $41,912 $41,580 $42,505
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Total Classified Compensation
Average Benefit Average Base Salary
P a g e | 7
The increase in In‐Pay Band (IPB) salary adjustments for FY14 is attributable to a targeted effort to address pay
disparities in “hard‐to‐fill” classifications with a larger number of employees, who perform critical services. Specifically,
1,792 of the 1,928 IPB increases were granted to Child Protective Service workers at CYFD, Correctional Officers and
Probation Officers at NMCD, Security Guards at DCA, Dispatchers and MTD Officers at DPS, and Tax Account Auditors at
TRD.
The increase in average compa‐ratio is attributed to classification revisions, range adjustments, an increase in the
number of state employees retiring and the average hiring salary of recently hired or promoted employees.
AnnualKeyPerformanceMeasures
Performance evaluation remains critical in assessing the quality of the workforce, recognizing employee efforts and
activities and providing guidance in employee development. Performance evaluations are a requirement outlined within
the SPB Rules and Regulations. Without a linkage to compensation, many employees and supervisors feel evaluations
are not worth the effort. However, research demonstrates an evaluation, even absent linkage to pay, creates the
opportunity not only to recognize and document performance but also to create a non‐threatening approach to
improving the quality of the workforce. In FY14, 99% of eligible employees were evaluated.
The number of employees completing their probationary period has remained flat. This is partly a result of the
reestablishment of minimum qualifications for classifications and classification and compensation reviews.
1515 121
565 510
1928
507 416 415
93 57 75
843
278 335 133 112 241
0 0 27 16 23 230
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
FY09 Total FY10 Total FY11 Total FY12 Total FY13 Total FY14 Total
Multiple Components of Pay By Fiscal Year
In Pay Band
Temporary Salary Inc.
Temporary RecruitmentDifferential
Temporary RetentionDifferential
103% 102% 101% 99% 100%
0%
50%
100%
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Average Employee Compa Ratio
P a g e | 8
12
34
810
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Number of Rule Compliance Review Audits Performed during the Fiscal Year
93%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
102%
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Rule Compliance Review Audit Exceptions Corrected within Six Months of Discovery
79%66% 66%
58%
99% 99%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Eligible Employees with a Completed Performance Appraisal on Record at the Close of the Fiscal Year
95% 97%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
FY13 FY14
Percent of Departments and Agencies with over 90% of Personnel Evaluations
Completed 71%
61% 58% 58%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14*This Number is based on New Hires in FY13 that completed probationary period durning
FY14
New Employees Who Successfully Completed Their Probationary Period
P a g e | 9
Overtime
When compared to the same time frame in FY13, the 4th quarter of FY14 shows overtime increased in both cost and
hours. This is attributed to increased retirement activity within agencies.
*Note: The above graphs account for both overtime accrual and payout at straight time and time and a half.
$9.2
$11.4
$8.9$10.0
$8.3
$10.7 $10.5$11.5
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Millions
Overtime Cost
FY13 FY14
403.2
508.1
386.1432.2
357.1
465.3 457.6486.7
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Thousands
Overtime Usage
FY13 FY14
15.7
18.9
15.3 15.516.9 16.3 16.3 16.2
0
5
10
15
20
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Monthly Average Number of Hours Worked Per Employee
FY13 FY14
16% 16% 16%17%
13%
18% 18% 18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Average Percentage of Employees Receiving Overtime Per Month
FY13 FY14
P a g e | 10
SickLeaveSick leave costs slightly increased over the 4th Quarter of FY13 by 1.4%. The number of sick hours used fell by ‐2.3% from the same period.
AnnualLeave
The following graphs show annual leave usage through the 4th quarter of FY14 and its associated budgetary impact.
During the 4th quarter of FY14, annual leave use was approximately four days taken per employee.
ClassifiedServiceRecruitmentTrends The Career Services Bureau’s primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with
the State Personnel Act and the SPB Rules which require the “certification of the
highest standing candidates to prospective employers (§10‐9‐13‐F NMSA 1978).”
Since November 2011, when the NEOGOV application system for managing
recruitment for all classified positions was initiated, there has been a 96% increase
in both job advertisements and applications received.
$7.3
$9.7
$7.8$7.1$7.1 $7.0
$7.9$7.2
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Millions
Sick Leave Cost
FY13 FY14
362
483
388358354 344
390350
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Thousands
Sick Leave Hours Used
FY13 FY14
$10.8
$12.5
$7.0
$9.0$10.8
$12.5
$7.0
$9.5
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Millions
Actual Annual Leave Cost
FY13 FY14
519
589
351
440518
579
341
454
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Thousands
Actual Annual Leave Hours Used
FY13 FY14
Since SPO initiated NEOGOV in 2011,
job advertisements and applications
have jumped 96%.
P a g e | 11
SPO is partnering with Departments to review how the “highest standing candidate” is currently defined (level of
education and related experience) to determine, on a case by case basis, if more precise criteria can be utilized for
particular positions (especially those with the greatest recruitment challenges).
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Applications 123,684 111,932 125,670 200,758 206,740 246,616
Postings 4,268 2,904 3,439 4,725 5,652 6,437
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Job Postings & Applications Received ‐ FY09 to FY14
96% increase in job
applications and
postings between
FY11 and FY14.
P a g e | 12
The above graphs illustrate a substantial increase in both the number of positions being advertised and the number of applicants available for consideration. This could not have been achieved without having a dynamic on‐line recruitment tool.
4th Quarter Posting Views and Applications by Department
Department Advertisements Views Applications Received
Aging & Long-Term Services Department 23 18,074 774
Children, Youth & Families Department 180 183,379 7,880
Department of Cultural Affairs 21 23,405 1,048
Department of Environment 49 39,645 1,538
Department of Finance & Administration 15 12,251 733
Department of Game & Fish 28 25,563 847
Department of Health 248 185,470 6,642
Department of Public Safety 32 24,909 1,014
Department of Transportation 247 120,035 4,327
Department of Workforce Solutions 25 24,497 1,551
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 35 29,650 1,739
Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department 36 26,028 835
General Services Department 23 14,487 592
Human Services Department 193 140,658 7,318
New Mexico Corrections Department 119 73,925 3,617
Office of the State Engineer 19 15,207 571
Public Defender 31 18,916 1,024
Public Education Department 29 22,176 788
53,596
38,785
54,680
61,274
71,913
58,810 58,164 57,729
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
FY13Q1 FY13Q2 FY13Q3 FY13Q4 FY14Q1 FY14Q2 FY14Q3 FY14Q4
Applications Received
Total Hits on Posted Applications by Fiscal Year
FY12 FY13 FY14
2,286,916 3,645,209 4,079,561
P a g e | 13
Public Regulation Commission 15 9,294 572
Regulation & Licensing Department 37 24,191 1,250
Taxation & Revenue Department 97 62,840 3,404
The number of views each department’s job postings receives demonstrates an increased exposure of vacancies and
applicant interest in state positions. As can be seen, six agencies represent the majority (66%) of all jobs posted in this
quarter.
Notes on graph above:
Last Updated on June 30, 2014.
Excludes Continuous Postings (Advertised 30 days or more)
Data for Days Advertised, Referred and Referral to Hire is tied to the quarter in which the hire occurred. Therefore
these numbers do not reflect the actually time an agency took to refer all lists in that particular quarter.
Does not include hires that have not been entered in NEOGOV.
Department of Health15%
Department of Transportation
15%
Human Services Department
12%
Children, Youth & Families Dpt
11%
New Mexico Corrections Dept
7%
Taxation & Revenue Department
6%
All Other34%
FY14 Q4 Job Postings
14.19.1
41.2
64.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Average of Days Advertised Average of Days to Refer Average of Refer to Answer Average of Total by Answer
Days to Fill a Position by Answer Date
*Reporting from Advertisement Start Date
to Acceptance of Offer Letter
P a g e | 14
A number of factors impact the average days to fill a position. SPO continues to actively work with departments to decrease the amount of time to review and refer applications; the time has decreased significantly since NEOGOV implementation. The time to interview and process a hire (41 days) is the most significant portion of the hiring process. SPO is partnering with departments to develop interview time frames for hiring managers, develop feedback mechanisms to provide ongoing information on positions that are pending and to identify positions, classifications and departments that are posing particular challenges to timely recruitment.
AverageDaystoFillaPositionbyAnswerDateforKeyAgencies
SPO has outlined the top key agencies hiring information. Most of the key agencies meet or exceed hiring expectations. For example, SPO has recommended:
That the hiring manager review, upon receipt, their list of referred applicants within three business days to ensure they have an adequate pool to interview from and do not need additional applicants; and
That the agency interviews within two weeks of receiving the referred list of applicants.
SPO provides the agency Human Resource Manager with ongoing reports to inform them of any outstanding
advertisements that have not been filled and/or appropriately closed out within NEOGOV.
SPO acknowledges that factors exist that may impact the time to fill, such as background checks; however, by working
on the recommendations outlined, there have been positive changes within the time taken to fill positions.
13
11
13
1110
11 11
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Average Days to Process and Refer Applications
2013
2014
P a g e | 15
How to interpret the graph below:
The Average of Days Advertised is the average amount of time between an advertisement opening and closing.
The Average of Days to Refer is the average amount of time taken by Human Resource professionals to review the top ranked applications.
The Average of Days from Referral to Date of Offer Accepted is the average amount of time taken for an agency to interview, process appropriate hire paperwork and receive an offer of acceptance.
The Average of Total Days by Date Offer Accepted is the sum of the previous three columns.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Children, Youth & Families Department
Department of Cultural Affairs
Department of Environment
Department of Health
Department of Public Safety
Department of Transportation
Department of Workforce Solutions
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department
General Services Department
Human Services Department
New Mexico Corrections Department
Office of the State Engineer
Public Defender
Public Education Department
Taxation & Revenue Department
14.16
11.62
12.84
14.23
14.22
13.99
14.8
13.23
12.53
12.45
15.31
14.86
16.29
19.27
13.93
14.08
12.83
16.62
3.56
7.06
3.57
6.38
13.84
9.68
17.28
5.57
9.68
11.22
9.35
2.08
8.9
7.14
57.17
47.07
45.76
44.08
53.16
40.76
43.36
37.02
47.3
34.43
28.38
47.23
46.29
42.65
50.46
29.69
Average Days to Fill a Position by Answer Date for Key Agencies
Average Number of Days Advertised
Average of Days to Refer Top Ranked Applicants to HR
Average of Days from Referal to Offer Acceptance Date
Average Days to FillAcross All Agencies: 65
Average Days to Refer Top Ranked Applicants to HR: 9
Average Number of Days Advertised: 14
P a g e | 16
ClassifiedServiceHiresandTerminationsIn FY14, 3,227 positions in the state’s classified service were filled. This is directly attributed to continued efforts to fill and properly classify vacant budgeted positions and has created a positive impact on the delivery of services and improved employee morale throughout state government.
However, non‐competitive pay and classification systems continue to impact the State’s ability to attract and retain qualified applicants. The data demonstrate that a clear interest by applicants in the State vacancies exist: however, when seeing the low entry pay level, on average 18% behind the comparator market, the number of actual applicants for positions significantly decreases. While the actual hire rate for a minimally qualified applicant is closer to the mid‐point of the salary range for the position, that information is not available to the potential applicant. SPO is currently working to remedy this through a comprehensive compensation and classification review to make the pay structure more competitive and attractive.
The impact of changes to the State’s retirement system has concerned employees and increased their egress. While the State’s hiring activity has dramatically increased since FY11 by 156%, this effort only offsets the increased retirements of state employees.
NewHiresbyFiscalYear(FY09‐FY13)
21632332
29622858
1205
2193
30903227
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Classified Hires and Separations by Fiscal Year
Separations
Hires
In FY14, 3,227 positions within the classified service were filled,
positively impacting the quality of State services and morale.
P a g e | 17
FY14NewHires&SeparationsbyQuarter
NewHireCompa‐RatioThe Compa‐Ratio of newly hired employees, in many situations, is well above the entry level salary for vacancies appropriated by the Legislature. The state’s inability to adjust entry level rates within the salary plan makes it difficult for the state to compete in the labor market, forcing departments to hire at rates in excess of the mid‐point of the pay range. This failure to effectively manage the salary plan is a major factor in employee turnover and difficulty in attracting well‐qualified applicants. In concert with the Legislature, current appropriations for vacant positions are budgeted at mid‐point levels rather than entry level as had been the practice. As previously expressed, this is having a significant impact in the state’s ability to attract qualified applicants and retain tenured employees due to the resulting compaction; tenured employees are not progressing through the pay range.
856
686
832
716779 744
922
782
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
NOTE: Hires represent only new hires and do not include transfers or promotions of state
employees
New Hires By Quarter Fiscal Year Comparison
FY13 FY14
690
949
586
737760671 640
787
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Separations By Quarter
FY13 FY14
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Voluntary 490 349 418 466
Retirement 136 213 99 197
Involuntary 103 90 88 99
Other 29 19 35 25
RIF 2 0 0 0
0100200300400500600
Classified Separation Reason
P a g e | 18
FY14–4thQuarterNewHireCompa‐RatiobyPayBand
Pay Band Average Compa‐Ratio # of Employees
25 0.93 20 30 1.01 61 35 0.89 41 40 1.02 57 45 0.99 80 50 0.89 137 55 0.92 83 60 0.90 117 65 0.98 118 70 0.99 83 75 1.05 47 80 1.04 38 85 1.06 30 90 1.07 7 95 1.03 2 96 1.17 1
Grand Total 0.96 922
NewHireDemographics
Ethnicity Female Male Grand Total % Per Ethnic Group
African American 17 11 28 3%American Indian 6 1 7 1%
Asian 11 10 21 2%
Hawaiian 0 1 1 0%
Hispanic 233 171 404 44%
Not Specified 69 95 164 18%
White 168 129 297 32%
Grand Total 504 418 922 100%
% Per Gender Group 55% 45%
93%
95% 94%
96%95%
96% 96%97%
86%
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4
New Hire Compa‐Ratio
FY13 FY14
91.0%
93.5%94.4%
96.1%
90%
91%
92%
93%
94%
95%
96%
97%
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
Average New Hire Compa‐Ratio By Fiscal Year
P a g e | 19
FY14ClassifiedSeparationsbyReason
Reason Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Accepted New Job (Competitor) 18 16 11 24
Accepted New Job (Non‐Comp) 32 20 18 23
Attendance 11 9 13 17
Death 9 5 11 10
Disability Retirement 14 11 9 7
Discharge 6 1 7 5
Dissatisfied w/Work Conditions 3 1 0 0
Dissatisfied with Hours 1 0 0 0
Dissatisfied with Pay 1 4 1 4
Failed Condition of Employment 10 16 9 6
Family Reasons 5 4 3 5
Health Reasons 10 10 16 8
Insubordination 5 3 0 2
Leave of Absence Expiration 1 0 0 0
Misconduct 40 40 38 40
Mutual Consent 0 0 1 0
Non Job Connected Medical 0 0 4 2
Normal Retirement 116 190 82 178
Other Medical 3 4 3 3
Personal Reasons 86 58 59 53
Quit without Notice 22 18 17 26
Relocation 12 9 2 7
Reorganization 1 1 0 0
Resignation 291 208 294 313
Resignation‐Other Position 8 9 6 5
Return to School 6 1 5 2
RIF ‐ SPO Board Approved 2 0 0 0
Unforeseen Circumstances 2 1 2 2
Unsatisfactory Performance 18 13 13 20
Vested Retirement 6 10 8 10
Violation of Rules 8 7 8 7
Grand Total 747 669 640 779
FY144thQuarterClassifiedSeparationsbyAgency Agency Name Total
Aging & Long‐Term Services Department 11
Architect Examiners Board 1
Board of Nursing 1
Children, Youth & Families Department 100
Commission for the Blind 3
Commission of Public Records 1
Department of Cultural Affairs 11
P a g e | 20
Agency Name Total
Department of Environment 17
Department of Finance & Administration 2
Department of Game & Fish 6
Department of Health 156
Department of Public Safety 21
Department of Transportation 79
Department of Veteran Services 2
Department of Workforce Solutions 22
Department of Information Technology 2
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 12
Educational Retirement Board 2
Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department 10
EXPO New Mexico 2
Gaming Control Board 5
General Services Department 9
Homeland Security & Emergency Management 1
Human Services Department 95
Livestock Board 2
Military Affairs 12
Miners Colfax Medical Center 13
New Mexico Corrections Department 67
Office of the State Engineer 11
Office of African American Affairs 1
Public Defender 14
Public Education Department 10
Public Employee Retirement Association 3
Public Regulation Commission 6
Regulation & Licensing Department 8
Secretary of State 3
State Land Office 6
State Personnel Board 3
Superintendent of Insurance 4
Taxation & Revenue Department 42
Tourism Department 1
Workers Compensation Admin 10
Grand Total 787
StatewideClassifiedTurnoverRateTurnover is attributable to many factors beyond management control such as retirement, transfer and promotional
opportunity. The turnover rate for FY14 averages 6.6%. This is a decrease from the 7.7% turnover rate in FY13. The
graph and table on the next page reflects classified employee quarterly turnover rates by department.
Statewide agency trends in turnover are being closely monitored. It should be noted that this data has been presented
for better analysis to determine causal effects. However, determining the actual turnover rate in each agency is difficult
since the General Appropriation Act contains authorized FTE, rather than funded FTE, resulting in an overstated turnover
rate.
P a g e | 21
StatewideClassifiedTurnoverRatebyAgency
Business Unit
Agency Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY14
Average
30800 State Auditor 0.0% 12.5% 13.6% 4.5% 7.7%
33300 Taxation & Revenue Department 7.3% 6.8% 5.8% 7.0% 6.7%
33700 State Investment Council 0.0% 10.5% 18.8% 0.0% 7.3%
34100 Department of Finance & Administration 16.1% 8.9% 2.4% 2.3% 7.4%
34200 Public School Insurance Authority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
34300 Retiree Health Care Authority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
35000 General Services Department 9.3% 6.7% 9.9% 6.3% 8.1%
35200 Educational Retirement Board 2.1% 4.0% 1.9% 3.8% 3.0%
35500 Public Defender 6.7% 7.6% 5.7% 4.3% 6.1%
36100 Department of Information Technology 4.3% 5.0% 5.4% 3.4% 4.5%
36600 Public Employee Retirement Association 3.3% 5.1% 3.3% 5.1% 4.2%
36900 Commission of Public Records 2.9% 2.9% 6.3% 2.9% 3.8%
37000 Secretary of State 8.2% 8.2% 12.8% 19.5% 12.2%
37800 State Personnel Board 7.5% 2.1% 8.9% 6.7% 6.3%
39400 State Treasurer 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%
40400 Architect Examiners Board 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 37.5%
41700 Border Development Authority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
41800 Tourism Department 9.3% 1.8% 5.5% 1.8% 4.6%
41900 Economic Development Department 8.8% 12.1% 15.2% 0.0% 9.0%
42000 Regulation & Licensing Department 5.3% 8.8% 3.5% 3.8% 5.3%
43000 Public Regulation Commission 5.1% 2.6% 5.0% 5.6% 4.6%
44000 Superintendent of Insurance 0.0% 1.5% 2.8% 1.4% 1.4%
44600 Medical Examiners Board 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5%
44900 Board of Nursing 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 5.6% 2.9%
46000 EXPO New Mexico 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 3.2%
46400 Prof Engineers & Land Surveyors Board 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
46500 Gaming Control Board 22.0% 0.0% 6.3% 10.6% 9.7%
46900 State Racing Commission 18.2% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%
47900 Veterinary Examiners Board 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
49500 Spaceport Authority 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
50500 Department of Cultural Affairs 4.7% 5.6% 4.7% 7.2% 5.6%
50800 Livestock Board 11.9% 6.8% 10.7% 5.4% 8.7%
51600 Department of Game & Fish 7.5% 5.5% 4.9% 2.7% 5.1%
52100 Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department 32.0% 10.1% 5.6% 7.9% 13.9%
52200 Youth Conservation Corps 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
8.2% 7.1%8.8%
7.4% 7.7%6.6% 6.9% 6.1% 6.7% 6.6%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Average
Statewide Turnover Rate
FY13 FY14
P a g e | 22
Business Unit
Agency Name Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY14
Average
53900 State Land Office 12.1% 4.2% 2.8% 7.8% 6.7%
55000 Office of the State Engineer 6.0% 3.9% 2.1% 4.8% 4.2%
60300 Office of African American Affairs 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 12.5%
60400 Com for Deaf/Hard of Hearing 8.3% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4%
60600 Commission for the Blind 6.7% 5.0% 3.3% 5.2% 5.0%
60900 Department of Indian Affairs 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1%
62400 Aging & Long‐Term Services Department 2.4% 8.3% 6.8% 5.4% 5.7%
63000 Human Services Department 9.0% 6.5% 6.6% 7.4% 7.4%
63100 Department of Workforce Solutions 7.6% 9.9% 6.8% 8.1% 8.1%
63200 Workers Compensation Admin 6.8% 4.8% 2.8% 9.9% 6.1%
64400 Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 5.6% 6.9% 3.7% 5.5% 5.4%
64500 Governor's Comm. on Disability 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2.5%
64700 Developmental Disabilities Planning Commission 44.4% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.2%
66200 Miners Colfax Medical Center 16.4% 13.2% 15.7% 19.9% 16.3%
66500 Department of Health 8.3% 8.0% 6.3% 6.0% 7.1%
66700 Department of Environment 5.7% 4.5% 5.3% 4.0% 4.9%
66800 Office of Natural Resource Trustee 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
67000 Department of Veteran Services 6.1% 3.0% 0.0% 6.1% 3.8%
69000 Children, Youth & Families Department 7.2% 5.3% 6.5% 6.9% 6.5%
70500 Military Affairs 1.0% 9.3% 11.1% 13.0% 8.6%
76000 Adult Parole Board 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
77000 New Mexico Corrections Department 7.4% 8.3% 7.3% 10.1% 8.3%
78000 Crime Victims Reparation Commission 6.7% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.5%
79000 Department of Public Safety 6.5% 10.0% 8.6% 4.9% 7.5%
79500 Homeland Security & Emergency Management 0.0% 11.6% 9.8% 5.0% 6.6%
80500 Department of Transportation 7.4% 5.8% 4.5% 5.6% 5.8%
92400 Public Education Department 10.5% 7.4% 3.4% 5.2% 6.6%
94900 NM Education Trust Board 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
95000 Higher Education Department 2.9% 6.1% 5.4% 2.5% 4.2%
Statewide Turnover Rate 6.6% 6.9% 4.5% 6.2% 6.0%
VacancyRatesWhile it is certain that vacancies need to be filled and tracked, it is difficult to ascertain what positions are budgeted vs.
authorized. Due to funding restrictions, not all of the authorized FTEs in the GAA are budgeted to be filled. This creates
confusion and makes it complicated to discern what the actual vacancy rates are for each agency. Departments are
diligently working to reduce actual vacancy rates as can be evidenced in the following statewide statistics.
15.4% 13.6% 13.5%16.8%14.3% 15.3% 15.0% 13.5%
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Statewide Vacancy Rate
FY13 FY14
P a g e | 23
QuarterlyVacancyRatesforthe20KeyAgencies
Business Unit
Agency 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr.
21800 Administrative Office of the Courts 7.8% 7.4% 7.7% 6.4%23200 2nd Judicial District Court 9.8% 9.2% 8.1% 4.6%
24400 Bernalillo Metropolitan Court 10.6% 12.8% 10.4% 12.8%
33300 Taxation & Revenue Dept. 19.3% 17.6% 14.7% 15.2%
35000 General Services Dept. 28.6% 28.9% 27.1% 25.4%
35500 Public Defender 9.6% 8.4% 7.4% 3.6%
42000 Regulation & Licensing Dept. 22.1% 22.4% 23.4% 19.3%
50500 Department of Cultural Affairs 13.1% 15.5% 12.6% 17.3%
52100 Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department 15.9% 23.8% 24.0% 20.5%
55000 Office of the State Engineer 10.6% 11.9% 12.2% 9.2%
63000 Human Services Department. 13.9% 14.5% 12.4% 7.0%
63100 Department of Workforce Solutions 23.3% 22.8% 22.8% 2.6%
64400 Department. of Vocational Rehabilitation 25.6% 28.3% 26.9% 20.9%
66500 Department of Health 14.0% 16.5% 15.7% 18.0%
66700 Department of Environment 17.0% 16.9% 17.1% 17.6%
69000 Children, Youth & Families Department 14.7% 14.2% 13.5% 12.7%
77000 New Mexico Corrections Department 22.6% 24.3% 24.1% 22.9%
79000 Department of Public Safety 16.3% 17.4% 17.3% 17.2%
80500 Department of Transportation 13.6% 14.8% 13.4% 13.9%
92400 Public Education Department 16.7% 19.3% 16.9% 13.7%
State Wide Vacancy Rate 14.3% 15.3% 15.0% 15.2%
TrainingThe Training and Development Bureau (TDB) mission, ‘to develop great leaders for state government in support of the
agencies we serve,’ continues to direct the provision of statewide guidance and oversight for centralized leadership
development and organizational learning. The SPO TDB commitment is to develop leaders dedicated to public service
through learning that measurably transforms individuals and organizations.
Instructor–LedCoreCurriculumClasses
The TDB delivers practitioner‐oriented professional development and both mandatory and statutory instructor‐led and
eLearning course blocks:
Managing Employee Performance (MEP): the MEP is mandated by the State Personnel Board Rules: Subsection A
of 1.7.9.9 NMAC. Topics of discussion include employee evaluations, communication and documentation in support
of teams and projects. This course promotes accountability and collaboration through all levels of management and
supervision. In the 4th Quarter, the MEP Training was conducted for 289 managers and supervisors from various
agencies, a 93% attendance rate.
P a g e | 24
Cultural Competency: pursuant to the State‐Tribal Collaboration Act (STCA), in collaboration with the Indian Affairs
Department (IAD), SPO developed a cultural competency statutory training program to be offered to all state
employees who have ongoing communication with Native American nations, tribes or pueblos. SPO’s efforts in FY14
to communicate, collaborate and consult with tribes as described in the Tribal Collaboration and Communication
Policy was to ensure that the training developed in collaboration with IAD remains aligned with the needs of tribal
and state governments. State agency employees are notified of the provisions of the STCA through the TDB and the
IAD websites. SPO maintains certification of the number of state employees from each state agency that have
completed the Cultural Competency training. The current Cultural Competency training curriculum includes:
o An introduction to the unique legal and political status of New Mexico Indian Nations, Pueblos, and
Tribes with a review of Federal Indian policies and laws;
o An examination of tribal governments and authorities;
o Collaboration/consultation principles and guidance;
o Communication skills; and
o Cultural competencies and best practices.
Fundamentals of Supervision: this course includes sections on supervision and leadership core values and practices,
strategies for coordinating powerful work with teams and stakeholders, and key considerations regarding
motivation and dealing with resistance effectively. Real scenarios are discussed and solutions are developed utilizing
the Facts, Objectives, Solutions, Actions (FOSA) method. A total of 97 state employees participated in the training in
the 4th Quarter.
Developing an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Successful Reasonable Accommodation Process: this course
includes relevant information that employers need in order to provide accommodations for applicants and
employees with disabilities. For many employers, understanding when and how they must comply can be, at times,
complex. Developing effective policies, procedures and practices can assure full compliance as well as help
management successfully respond to reasonable accommodation requests and needs. This 3‐hour training, given by
the Southwest ADA Center, provides an overview of the ADA Amendments Act, extensive reasonable
accommodation and best practice approaches, useful ADA technical assistance resources and answers to key
questions. A total of 58 state employees participated in the training in the 4th Quarter.
102
35
105 100
517
58
106
58
291
187
131
289
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Managing Employee Performance
FY12
FY13
FY14
0
247
148
219
0
231
130
7378 76 7996
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Cultural Competency
FY12
FY13
FY14
P a g e | 25
ELearningMandatoryClasses
Ethics for New Mexico State Government Employees: Ethics training helps state employees understand and be
held accountable for the Code of Ethical Conduct, thereby increasing the efficiency and efficacy of New Mexico State
government. The online Ethics Training for State employees is a collaborative project with the New Mexico State
University College of Business and the Daniels Foundation.
Civil Rights: the Civil Rights course strives to make public servants aware of the ethical standards and the social
responsibility necessary to act humanely and responsively in an intergovernmental system. The Civil Rights Training
has been made available to all new employees in concert with agency hires; agencies are responsible for delivering
this training to new employees within 90 days of hire. A total of 615 state employees participated in the training in
the 4th Quarter.
All eLearning courses are available through an institutional learning management system (LMS) from Blackboard. SPO
Blackboard allows state employees to access course materials and conduct course activities anywhere and anytime they
can access World‐Wide Web.
AdditionalTraining
SHARE Human Capital Management (HCM) Training: the TDB partners with the Department of Information
Technology to manage training offered to state employees who are either new or current users of the SHARE
system. A Subject Matter Experts (SME) conducts the SHARE HCM training. A total of 106 state employees
participated in the training in the 4th Quarter.
Discipline and Adjudication Training: the TDB is working closely with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to redesign the
Discipline and Adjudication Training. Faculty are instructors with expertise in discipline and adjudication as detailed
by administrative code, NMSA 1978, the NM Governmental Dispute Prevention Resolution Statute and Alternative
Dispute Resolution methods. The SMEs will also be familiar with all forms and pleadings included in the processes.
Workplace Violence Active Shooter Awareness Training: SPO, in collaboration with the Department of Public
Safety, Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management and General Services Division successfully
deployed the Workplace Violence Active Shooter
Awareness Training. Throughout the year, Chad Pierce
from the Department of Public Safety presented the
33
15
322526
0
107 108
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
SHARE HCM Training Participants
FY13 FY14
The Training and Development Bureau trained and coordinated classes for 970 employees in FY14.
P a g e | 26
training curricula to 1,500 state employees. The intent of this course is to provide guidance to recognize the signs of
potential work place violence and to prepare state employees who may be caught in an active shooter situation. In
addition, GSD, SPO and the Department of Tourism are developing an eLearning course that will be embedded in the
New Employee Orientation.
New Employee Orientation: TBD has deployed the online New Employee Orientation. This course acquaints new
employees with state history, economy & fun facts. The training also covers the structure of state government, the
functions of state agencies, overview of labor unions in New Mexico state government and benefits available
through employment with the state.
AdjudicationIn compliance with the Personnel Act, SPO’s Adjudication Division is responsible for conducting administrative hearings
on appeals filed by classified state employees who have completed their probationary period and against whom formal
disciplinary action (suspension, demotion, or dismissal) has been taken. Following pre‐hearing discovery and exchange
of information, one of the Division’s two Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) conducts an evidentiary hearing, at which the
state agency imposing the discipline and the appealing employee present evidence and arguments related to whether
there was just cause for the disciplinary action. Following the hearing, the ALJ prepares a written Recommended
Decision for submission to the SPB. A Final Decision is then made by the SPB.
Although the District Attorney’s Association and the Department of Public Safety have their own personnel boards,
employees of those agencies (excluding State Police Officers) often select the SPB to decide appeals of their disciplinary
action. Additionally, if a classified state employee is “separated” from their job as a result of injury or illness (on or off
the job), the employee has the right to file an appeal with the SPB and have a hearing on the issue of whether the
employee was properly separated from employment. The SPB is also charged with making findings on complaints filed
against Workers’ Compensation Judges and forwarding its finding to the Director of the Workers’ Compensation
Administration. The Adjudication Division conducts evidentiary hearings for the SPB for these purposes as well.
State classified employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) have the option of choosing an outside
arbitrator to decide their disciplinary action appeals. Employee requests for
arbitration are provided to SPO’s Labor Relations Division, which provides notice to
the employer and union of the request.
The majority of the Adjudication Division’s hearings are conducted at SPO in Santa
Fe, which is equipped with a relatively new hearing room. To conduct hearings
outside Santa Fe, the ALJs continue to rely primarily on videoconferencing. The
agency taking disciplinary action is typically directed to arrange the
videoconferencing between its Santa Fe office and the field office responsible for the disciplinary action. The ALJ then
conducts the hearing from Santa Fe, while the attorneys (and/or representatives) and witnesses typically appear at the
remote location. The Adjudication Division will consider requests for alternative hearing arrangements on a case‐by‐
case basis.
This 4th Quarter, the Adjudication Division received 13 new appeals, and 16 appeals reached final disposition through
decision (3), settlement (8), or withdrawal (5). At the close of the quarter, a total of 38 appeals remain pending.
Adjudication reached final
disposition on 57 appeals in
FY14.
P a g e | 27
Status 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. FY14 Total
Appeals Pending 49 48 42 38 177
New Appeals Filed 13 23 11 13 60
Appeal Disposition 14 10 17 16 57
LaborRelationsThe primary goal of the Labor Relations Division (LRD) is to ensure proper guidance, training and oversight for all state
agencies. The LRD exists to govern the principles behind the New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act (PEBA), which
guarantees state employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively, or to refrain from such activity, and upholds the
SPB Rules that provide protected rights to state employees. As the Governor’s designee, the LRD has the authority to
negotiate and enforce a CBA with the union and ensure its proper administration.
The Labor Relations Division has many unique and distinctive
features which provide invaluable services to state agencies,
employees and unions through its functions of contract
administration and training. The main objective of the LRD is to
act as the labor contract administrator for the State of New
Mexico, working actively with state agencies and signatory
unions in administering the CBAs that benefit the State and its unionized workforce. In this capacity, the Division works
closely with state agencies to ensure consistent application of the CBAs and that they are properly administered in the
spirit in which they were negotiated. The Division promotes a harmonious and cooperative relationship between state
agencies and labor organizations, protecting the public interest by ensuring an orderly operation for the State. The LRD
works directly with the 3 unions which currently represent 55.6% of classified service employees within the State; New
Mexico Motor Transportation Employee Association (NMMTEA), Communication Workers of America (CWA), and
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
UnionRepresentedvs.NonUnion
7,541
2,411
189
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
AFSCME CWA NMMTEA
Union Represented Employees
AFSCME41.25%
CWA13.34%
NMMTEA1.01%
Non Union44.40%
Classified Service Union vs. Non‐Union
113 grievances were filed with the LRD in FY14,
down from 130 filed in FY13.
P a g e | 28
During the 4th quarter of FY14, a total of 24 union grievances were filed, 21 by AFSCME and three by CWA. Out of the 24
union grievances filed, two were settled, one timed out (a.k.a. Dead on Time), and the union(s) withdrew two union
grievances. A total of 16 of the remaining grievances have not reached a final outcome.
There were two Prohibited Practice Complaints (PPCs) filed during this quarter by AFSCME.
There were two disciplinary appeals before an arbitrator invoked by a bargaining unit employee and/or their union
representative during the 4th quarter; both by AFSCME.
The LRD continues to support state supervisors and managers by facilitating labor related training. This quarter the LRD
conducted six Living in a Union Environment (LIUE) trainings. A total of 154 managers and supervisors attended these
classes. LRD also conducted five How Would You Handle This classes, 50 human resources professionals attended this
training. Additionally, LRD trained ten supervisors and managers from various different agencies in the intricacies of
conducting a workplace investigation.
The LRD also rolled out two new trainings. The first training developed was an LIUE refresher course. The purpose of this
course is to serve as a refresher to those supervisors, managers and HR professionals that have already attended the
Q1 Grievances Q2 Grievances Q3 Grievances Q4 Grievances
FY10 38 55 68 61
FY11 48 46 50 61
FY12 56 37 36 57
FY13 38 32 29 31
FY14 29 31 29 24
01020304050607080
Number of Grievances Filed
72
43
20
6567
125 119
158141
55
119
154
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of Employees Attending LIUE Traning
FY12 FY13 FY14
6
14
6
87
98
2
0
5
10
15
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Number of disciplinary actions (union covered) positions appealing to arbitration rather than
to SPB
FY 13 FY 14
P a g e | 29
eight‐hour LIUE training. This four‐hour course is aimed at recalling and reinforcing previously acquired knowledge. This
training takes into consideration each agency's unique needs.
The second training rolled out this quarter is the Pre‐Investigation Consultation for Agencies. This consultation is for
Supervisors, Managers and Human Resources (HR) professionals. A professional and prompt response to allegations of
inappropriate workplace behavior is imperative and a good workplace investigation will improve the factual bases of an
agency's decision‐making. The State Personnel Office (SPO) is available to consult with managers, supervisors and HR
professionals to ensure a quality, prompt and fair investigation. The objective of this consultation is to provide
managers, supervisors and HR professionals with one‐on‐one guidance and support prior to starting an investigation.
*$0 $3.0
$7.4
*$0
$4.4$4.7
$3.1
$16.7
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
$18.0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Thousands $
*No cost have yet to go to hearing, settled, withdrawn
Actual Cost Paid by the State for Arbitration
FY13
FY14
$4.4$4.7
$7.2
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
FY12 Average FY13 Average FY14 Average
Thousands
Average cost paid by state for arbitration
Related Documents
